Trust is essential in human relationships including those within healthcare. Recent studies have raised concerns about patients’ declining levels of trust. This article will explore the role of trust in decision-making about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this research thirty-three senior doctors, junior doctors and division 1 nurses were interviewed about how decisions are made about providing CPR. Analysis of these interviews identified lack of trust as one cause for poor understanding of treatment decisions and lack of acceptance of medical judgement. (...) Two key implications emerged from the analysis. First, before embarking on a discussion about CPR it is essential to establish trust between the doctor and the patient/family. Secondly, it is essential that the CPR discussion itself does not undermine trust and cause harm to the patient. (shrink)

We have studied ethical considerations of care among health professionals when treating and setting priorities for elderly patients in Norway. The views of medical doctors and nurses were analysed using qualitative methods. We conducted 21 in depth interviews and 3 focus group interviews in hospitals and general practices. Both doctors and nurses said they treated elderly patients different from younger patients, and often they were given lower priorities. Too little or too much treatment, in the sense of too many interventions (...) and too much drugs, combined with too little care and comfort, was admitted as a relatively frequent yet unwanted consequence of the way clinical priorities were set for elderly patients. This was explained in terms of elderly patients not tolerating the same treatment as younger patients, and questions were raised about the quality of life of many elderly patients after treatment. These explanations were frequently referred to as medically sound decision making. Other explanations had little to do with medically sound decisions. These often included deep frustration with executive guidelines and budget constraints. (shrink)

Social and structural inequities shape health and illness; they are an everyday presence within the doctor-patient encounter yet, there is limited ethical guidance on what individual physicians should do. This paper draws on a study that explored how doctors and their professional associations ought to respond to the issue of social health inequities.

The focus of the study is the conflict between care and concern for particular patients, versus considerations that take impartial considerations of justice to be central to moral deliberations. To examine these questions we have conducted qualitative interviews with health professionals in Norwegian hospitals. We found a value norm that implicitly seemed to overrule all others, the norm of ‘making a difference for the patients’. We will examine what such a statement implies, aiming to shed some light over moral dilemmas (...) interwoven in bedside rationing. (shrink)